The Modern Era of Dating and Heartbreat

[Sanman]

There is the chance, however, that those people would have no opportunities for education without that same push, no? I suppose men have "lost out" on jobs because of women entering the job market, but it's hardly fair to be kept from following your chosen profession, or even unduly hindered in doing so, simply by the luck of birth that is unchangeable. I'm not saying everything is easy for everyone with choices -- I'm saying it isn't. But at least choices give people chances.

 

I am fairly young, so wasn't alive for the 70s. I'm sure, however, that people then and now and in every time that's ever existed talked about how much "simpler" or "better" it was in the "old days." We idealize the past.

 

Really, 19th century romance was hardly romantic at all and was riddled with class politics and economic concerns. Really, it was hard to change your class back then -- if you weren't born to an educated family, you probably weren't going to be educated. Male or female. I just don't get the comfort in "knowing your place" I guess --- I find much more comfort in being able to impact my place and make my own choices, rather than have them not just handed to me but forced upon me.

 

At any rate, if someone wants an education that guarantees success, they can get one today. Engineering. Certain kinds of software. Medicine, though that one takes a bit of time to payoff, sure. Hell, nurses (college-educated and highly trained) still do well, if one can't be a doctor. I'm not talking billions and a private jet success, mind you, but good, steady, lifelong income, and a high starting salary. There are still careers in which you can write your own ticket. But why should every PhD get to write his/her own ticket? Why should half the potential workforce not be in the market just to lessen 'competition'? I see no good reasons for any of that. Your argument just seems. . . lazy to me.

 

That's not to say people aren't down on their luck these days, sometimes to no fault of their own, but to say society's bad because people are down on their luck . . . well, choices didn't do that. People have been down on their luck at many points in history, some hardly marked by great selection.

 

Lets not kid ourselves. A minority child born to a single parent of welfare does not have the same chance or opportunities as a child born to a rich white family. G.W. Bush did not get an ivy league education and the ability to be president based on intelligence and academic merit alone. He had help.

 

For many of the jobs you have described, prospects are better than most but there are still issues. Healthcare providers have to pay thousands of dollars in graduation, licensing, and insurance fees before they start. I know doctors, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, and others who were out of the job 5+ months before they got hired. Who is paying to support these people while they pay thousands of dollars in costs with no income for months? Well-to-do educated parents in most cases. It is not the poor working class parents. They often send their kids to get educated with no idea of the real costs and timeline.

 

I am not saying that people should not be given a chance to succeed. However, once you make to the top if the mountain, you cannot cry that you can't find a life partner that did not also make it to the top. One person's gain is almost always another person's loss. Should that loss come with thousands of dollars of debt and years of lost life or is it more humane to tell a person they cannot get that education or opportunity and allow them time to create another plan?

Edited June 26, 2012 by Sanman

[Sanman]

I'm just going to address this part.

 

I do fairly well in my profession. By no means lucrative, but not too shabby. Given my druthers, I'd happily pick a partner who made equal, to even a little less, than I do. (Ideally, my partner would either: have a job he loves and is amazing at, but doesn't pay super well... or a job that he doesn't mind and pays decent.)

 

My concern has always been less "what's his income?" then "what are his financial decisions like?" If he can support himself and live decently on $20,000 a year, then who the heck cares that it's a "low salary"? He's obviously a budgeting whiz, which is very attractive to me!

 

Okay, now my actual point. Traditionally, I have always paid for myself. Sometimes, I even pay for the guy. But each time, this has resulted in me ending up with guys who were not into me.

 

I think the majority of women who want guys to pay for their meals aren't looking for a rich man (there are outliners and gold diggers, of course)... it's not the money that matters, but the guy's interest. A guy paying for you on a date is a HUGE sign of investment on his part. He wants to pay for you, which means he's interested.

 

In other words, men paying for women is about women trying to gauge the guy's interest. If he doesn't pay, doesn't offer to pay.... pretty much guaranteed he is not into you, because he's not willing to put forth an investment.

 

Just wanted to address that part of your post.

 

Ah, but that is not equal. Many men married women that did not have careers that paid well or that they loved. Someone married that waitress. The issue you talk about goes to men as well. We want to know interest is there for us and we don't want to waste our money when there is no interest. So, here you are at an impasse. Women are making money, but you are still vary of taking the chances men did when they had the money (getting taken advantage of if they pay for the date). Many men are more careful with the lesser amount of money they have and do not want to be used either (thus they no longer want to pay for dates).

[AD1980]

It really puzzles me that some people are so desperate to get married that theyd rather the old days and have somebody marry them because they have to not becasue they actually want to and love them..

 

I guess soceity has pumped it into our heads enough that if we dont have the family with tewhite picket fence are lifes afailure and a lot of people have bought into it..

[zengirl]

Lets not kid ourselves. A minority child born to a single parent of welfare does not have the same chance or opportunities as a child born to a rich white family. G.W. Bush did not get an ivy league education and the ability to be president based on intelligence and academic merit alone. He had help.

 

Agree, entirely. But it has gotten better since the 19th century. Not good enough and certainly not good enough for the truly poor, which is why I don't get the lament of the middle class you posted. 35K is good money compared to many. I found a teacher's salary not luxurious but certainly beyond adequate for a decent lifestyle. And I knew male teachers who dated or were married --- in fact, ALL the male teachers I've ever met who were older than 30 were married and most under 30. A few still had GFs, many live-ins. I've never actually met a male teacher who was single. Seriously. (Well, not a proper teacher in the U.S. --- a traveling ESL teacher, sure, but most of us were single due to the transient nature of our work.)

 

For many of the jobs you have described, prospects are better than most but there are still issues. Healthcare providers have to pay thousands of dollars in graduation, licensing, and insurance fees before they start. I know doctors, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, and others who were out of the job 5+ months before they got hired. Who is paying to support these people while they pay thousands of dollars in costs with no income for months? Well-to-do educated parents in most cases. It is not the poor working class parents. They often send their kids to get educated with no idea of the real costs and timeline.

 

It is true that those with parents who have means have advantages, sure. We could do more for that societally. However, many people make it happen. I do agree there is still way too little mobility for the truly poor, but I don't see how that was better with fewer choices, so I don't really understand your argument.

 

I am not saying that people should not be given a chance to succeed. However, once you make to the top if the mountain, you cannot cry that you can't find a life partner that did not also make it to the top.

 

Well, what is the top of the mountain, really? At any rate, no one is entitled to a certain kind of partner or a partner at all. I'm not really sure how this suggests choices are bad.

 

One person's gain is almost always another person's loss. Should that loss come with thousands of dollars of debt and years of lost life or is it more humane to tell a person they cannot get that education or opportunity and allow them time to create another plan?

 

Well, I think it's fine to suggest someone does not have the necessary aptitude or a good enough plan and caution them, but not fine to suggest that we should be locked into our lots in life by virtue of birth. People still have to make wise choices, and many will not, but plenty of people would be miserable without choices too. At least with choices, you get a chance to be happy.

[verhrzn]

It really puzzles me that some people are so desperate to get married that theyd rather the old days and have somebody marry them because they have to not becasue they actually want to and love them..

 

I guess soceity has pumped it into our heads enough that if we dont have the family with tewhite picket fence are lifes afailure and a lot of people have bought into it..

 

I think it's that a lot of our society is structured in a "coupled" way. I just had a big ol' "Here Are Your New Benefits" discussion at work, and boy do they suck... but a lot of the other employees don't care, because they get insurance off their spouse. And there are so few single people in the company that there isn't enough of a push to get better benefits.

 

Insurance, taxes... two big areas of life with some pretty heavy benefits to being coupled.

 

There is of course the social aspect (I have no one to sit with at weddings, because everyone sits with their spouse/family... I vacation by myself because everyone is saving for a 2nd honeymoon with their hubby... etc) but structurally, it can also just really suck. I don't make enough money to be able to buy a house, or have kids, on my own.

 

If I want those things, I need to be a couple. When there are so many avenues in life cut off from me, just because the opposite sex doesn't like me, it's a little tough to NOT get nostalgic for the days when, yeah, I was married to someone I might not like, but at least I got all these other perks.

[AD1980]

I

 

I think the majority of women who want guys to pay for their meals aren't looking for a rich man (there are outliners and gold diggers, of course)... it's not the money that matters, but the guy's interest. A guy paying for you on a date is a HUGE sign of investment on his part. He wants to pay for you, which means he's interested.

 

In other words, men paying for women is about women trying to gauge the guy's interest. If he doesn't pay, doesn't offer to pay.... pretty much guaranteed he is not into you, because he's not willing to put forth an investment.

 

Just wanted to address that part of your post.

 

Im not one of these guys who think men should never pay but i think the first date or two before you really know each other should be equal because the guy can also think hes being used for the dinner

 

Both genders have worries early on the first date or two i dont think only the womens should be taken care of

[verhrzn]

Im not one of these guys who think men should never pay but i think the first date or two before you really know each other should be equal because the guy can also think hes being used for the dinner

 

Both genders have worries early on the first date or two i dont think only the womens should be taken care of

 

Okay, what are the guy's concerns? Because I am seriously considering never paying for my own meal again, after it's become such a red flag for me, so it'd be nice to hear what a guy is concerned about. So, what signs does he look for to show the woman is interested and invested?

[AD1980]

I think it's that a lot of our society is structured in a "coupled" way. I just had a big ol' "Here Are Your New Benefits" discussion at work, and boy do they suck... but a lot of the other employees don't care, because they get insurance off their spouse. And there are so few single people in the company that there isn't enough of a push to get better benefits.

 

Insurance, taxes... two big areas of life with some pretty heavy benefits to being coupled.

 

There is of course the social aspect (I have no one to sit with at weddings, because everyone sits with their spouse/family... I vacation by myself because everyone is saving for a 2nd honeymoon with their hubby... etc) but structurally, it can also just really suck. I don't make enough money to be able to buy a house, or have kids, on my own.

 

If I want those things, I need to be a couple. When there are so many avenues in life cut off from me, just because the opposite sex doesn't like me, it's a little tough to NOT get nostalgic for the days when, yeah, I was married to someone I might not like, but at least I got all these other perks.

 

ehh theyres positive and negatives to both..i think people on both sides of the fence envy the other side in some respects and think the grass is greener

 

Id love to be with someone and practically all my friends are married but that really doesnt make me want to get married any quicker other then the fact my friends dont hang out as much

[Sanman]

Agree, entirely. But it has gotten better since the 19th century. Not good enough and certainly not good enough for the truly poor, which is why I don't get the lament of the middle class you posted. 35K is good money compared to many. I found a teacher's salary not luxurious but certainly beyond adequate for a decent lifestyle. And I knew male teachers who dated or were married --- in fact, ALL the male teachers I've ever met who were older than 30 were married and most under 30. A few still had GFs, many live-ins. I've never actually met a male teacher who was single. Seriously. (Well, not a proper teacher in the U.S. --- a traveling ESL teacher, sure, but most of us were single due to the transient nature of our work.)

 

 

It depends where you live. Come over the the east coast and I will show you plenty of struggling teachers. Many of my friends are teachers and professors and most are struggling due to competition and organizations trying to offer fewer good jobs (tenure track, etc). It is a fallacy that the best always succeed, there are many good people left out in the cold nowadays.

 

My point is that article is talking about how men no longer value the importance of relationships and many women complain about the lack of good dating options, but as women are being educated at greater rates than men and they are often taking the very jobs that men get. While I have no problem with this, those women cannot turn around and decry the fact that reducing the number of men with good jobs (because some will obviously be displaced my female candidates) has caused those men that are left to take advantage of their options. If women want more men with good jobs who will settle down easily, you need to increase (not decrease) the number of good jobs available to men or settle for men making significantly less as some will have to take that secretarial job that these educated women left unfilled. I am not decrying competition, but pointing out that every action has a consequence.

[AD1980]

Okay, what are the guy's concerns? Because I am seriously considering never paying for my own meal again, after it's become such a red flag for me, so it'd be nice to hear what a guy is concerned about. So, what signs does he look for to show the woman is interested and invested?

 

as i said the fact he can be used for a free dinner is a concern..I just dont think you can gauge a guys whole character by that first date or two and say well he paid hes a great guy or we split the check this will never work..

 

I know it simplifies things for you to think well in hindsight that relationship was doomed from the start because i paid for the first meal but i dont think its as easy as that..

 

I know total scumbags who pay for meals all the time and great guys who dont on first dates and vice versa theyres little correlation to character or if a relationship will work..

[Sanman]

Okay, what are the guy's concerns? Because I am seriously considering never paying for my own meal again, after it's become such a red flag for me, so it'd be nice to hear what a guy is concerned about. So, what signs does he look for to show the woman is interested and invested?

 

 

I don't want to get into this as their is already a master thread that you can read, but it basically boils down to the fact that men have no idea if a woman is seeing three other men for dinner as well. It happens routinely in OLD. Would you want the joy of paying for not only you, but the guy as well, while he decides if he wants to date you or one of the other women he is currently seeing?

[verhrzn]

I don't want to get into this as their is already a master thread that you can read, but it basically boils down to the fact that men have no idea if a woman is seeing three other men for dinner as well. It happens routinely in OLD. Would you want the joy of paying for not only you, but the guy as well, while he decides if he wants to date you or one of the other women he is currently seeing?

 

Haha that usually is what happens! That's why he's not paying for me... because he's paying for the girl who he took to dinner last night who he was actually interested in!

[Sanman]

Haha that usually is what happens! That's why he's not paying for me... because he's paying for the girl who he took to dinner last night who he was actually interested in!

 

Well, then welcome to dating like many men do. Fun, isn't it?

[zengirl]

It depends where you live. Come over the the east coast and I will show you plenty of struggling teachers.

 

I'm on the East coast! Come down South if you mind that high cost of living. It's not like people can't move, and many do, for better opportunities.

 

Many of my friends are teachers and professors and most are struggling due to competition and organizations trying to offer fewer good jobs (tenure track, etc). It is a fallacy that the best always succeed, there are many good people left out in the cold nowadays.

 

I agree that the 'best' don't always succeed, and we could do better with that. But I fail to see how that was better in the past.

 

Academia and teaching are really two very different careers. I know some teachers in NYC, where you are, and they're well-paid, as far as teachers go. Paid what they're worth? Mostly no. I'll champion that fight every time. Teachers are dramatically underpaid for the job they do and the credentials they need to get there, compared to other fields. What I find more problematic is the hostile attitude towards teachers today, not the money, but that's veering dramatically off-topic. At any rate, I don't think you can compare PhD academic tracks to teaching. PhD tracks, with a career in academia, are always marred by uncertainty and potential failure. Those are risky careers, really. I don't see that fact being hidden anywhere. The people who go into them usually have strong egos for such reasons --- getting to the top of that track isn't easy and failure means either finding something else to do fast or living like a student forever. Teaching isn't really like that - it's a pretty solidly middle class career, even in NYC, though you may have to move or sub for awhile to break in.

 

My point is that article is talking about how men no longer value the importance of relationships and many women complain about the lack of good dating options, but as women are being educated at greater rates than men and they are often taking the very jobs that men get. While I have no problem with this, those women cannot turn around and decry the fact that reducing the number of men with good jobs (because some will obviously be displaced my female candidates) has caused those men that are left to take advantage of their options.

 

Do you mean men left with highly desirable jobs? I don't really think most women require a man with a highly desirable or rare job, personally. Some do, surely, but some people require all sorts of things. I don't think a man needs a lot of money these days to attract a gal. Struggling financially makes every aspect of life a bit harder, but I know loads of regular, middle class or even student-poor people who make relationships work.

 

If women want more men with good jobs who will settle down easily, you need to increase (not decrease) the number of good jobs available to men or settle for men making significantly less as some will have to take that secretarial job that these educated women left unfilled. I am not decrying competition, but pointing out that every action has a consequence.

 

I also know many men with good jobs who settle down easily and plenty of sexy deadbeats that won't. I really don't see a correlation between job/career success and romantic success. It runs the gamut.

[verhrzn]

Well, then welcome to dating like many men do. Fun, isn't it?

 

Eh, I just figure it's part of the dating process.

 

The thing is, guys probably shouldn't be paying unless they are invested in the woman, and are getting some signs of interest from her. It's tough to tell girls "you should pay" because paying is one of the few ways guys show initial interest on a date. (All of the other signs could just be him "taking what he can get.")

 

I don't think most women actually want a rich guy. But there is still such a strong connection between the ideas of money <-> protection <-> interest in a lot of women's brains, that it's hard to disentangle.

[Sanman]

I'm on the East coast! Come down South if you mind that high cost of living. It's not like people can't move, and many do, for better opportunities.

 

 

 

I agree that the 'best' don't always succeed, and we could do better with that. But I fail to see how that was better in the past.

 

Academia and teaching are really two very different careers. I know some teachers in NYC, where you are, and they're well-paid, as far as teachers go. Paid what they're worth? Mostly no. I'll champion that fight every time. Teachers are dramatically underpaid for the job they do and the credentials they need to get there, compared to other fields. What I find more problematic is the hostile attitude towards teachers today, not the money, but that's veering dramatically off-topic. At any rate, I don't think you can compare PhD academic tracks to teaching. PhD tracks, with a career in academia, are always marred by uncertainty and potential failure. Those are risky careers, really. I don't see that fact being hidden anywhere. The people who go into them usually have strong egos for such reasons --- getting to the top of that track isn't easy and failure means either finding something else to do fast or living like a student forever. Teaching isn't really like that - it's a pretty solidly middle class career, even in NYC, though you may have to move or sub for awhile to break in.

 

 

 

Do you mean men left with highly desirable jobs? I don't really think most women require a man with a highly desirable or rare job, personally. Some do, surely, but some people require all sorts of things. I don't think a man needs a lot of money these days to attract a gal. Struggling financially makes every aspect of life a bit harder, but I know loads of regular, middle class or even student-poor people who make relationships work.

 

 

 

I also know many men with good jobs who settle down easily and plenty of sexy deadbeats that won't. I really don't see a correlation between job/career success and romantic success. It runs the gamut.

 

 

I am actually planning to move farther south after I finish up my fellowship for just those reasons. I have lived in the southeast before as well though and it is not always the most welcoming to minorities.

 

I put teaching and academia together because many of those that struggle in academia end up teaching in secondary schools. Academia was not such an uncertain path before the 1970s. The majority of PhD positions were fully funded, schools limited positions, and the majority of academics got jobs. Today, there is less funding, more positions, and less than 10% of graduates get tenure track jobs in some fields.

 

While it can run the gamut, the article was talking about successful men settling down more easily with women. While men run the gamut, the more available men with good jobs, the fewer choices you have and the more likely you are to settle. Limit the number of men with good jobs and those men will take advantage of the many women interested in them.

[AD1980]

Eh, I just figure it's part of the dating process.

 

The thing is, guys probably shouldn't be paying unless they are invested in the woman, and are getting some signs of interest from her. It's tough to tell girls "you should pay" because paying is one of the few ways guys show initial interest on a date. (All of the other signs could just be him "taking what he can get.")

 

 

Approaching a women talking to her and asking her out on a date is a decent sign of interest,its not the easiest thing to do either but men have no choice to get women..I dont know many men who approach women and ask thme out on a date they have no interest in..

 

Is it fullproof? well nothing is but Men initiating conversation and a date and in your opinion paying is showing a lot more outright interest then just a women agreeing to go out on a date..

 

As i said i dont think the first date should be about the man alleviating all the womens fears while he still has his..

[seachangeoflove]

They still want to be treated 'like a woman' rather than having to wear the pants and support a man.

 

 

Why does being a lady equate to the man paying? I won't lie, I love it when men open doors for me, walk on the outside of the sidewalk nearer the street or carry heavy things without asking... little things like that.

 

None of that equates to buying me things or paying for things. Make me feel special and feminie and I will have no problem paying my share or even picking up the check.

 

I agree with V above that a man paying is a way of showing interest. I am older (36) and I find the men I date 40+ DO NOT like when I offer to pay and take it as a sign of disinterest in them. A lot of them seem pratcially insulted, as if you are mocking their masculinity when offering to pay.

 

Ive called and asked a lot of men for second dates. Later they would tell me that they expected to never hear from me again and they would cite that as a reason.

 

"Well, you offered to pay your share on the first date. In fact you insisted!" and have taken that as a sign to NOT ask for date #2. Probably not an issue with the younger set I would imagine but it's probably a lot to do with upbringing and culture as well as era.

 

 

So for women the whole paying thing is a damned if you do, damned if you dont. I always try to let the man pay for the first part of the date but then insist on treating for dessert or coffee, parking, something....

 

to show I do appreciate him and have intrest without being a greedy bitch. It's a hard line to walk.

[seachangeoflove]

As i said i dont think the first date should be about the man alleviating all the womens fears while he still has his..

 

 

see, men ARE turning into women.

[verhrzn]

Approaching a women talking to her and asking her out on a date is a decent sign of interest,its not the easiest thing to do either but men have no choice to get women..I dont know many men who approach women and ask thme out on a date they have no interest in..

 

Is it fullproof? well nothing is but Men initiating conversation and a date and in your opinion paying is showing a lot more outright interest then just a women agreeing to go out on a date..

 

As i said i dont think the first date should be about the man alleviating all the womens fears while he still has his..

 

... I ask them out.

 

So what then?

[Sanman]

Ive called and asked a lot of men for second dates. Later they would tell me that they expected to never hear from me again and they would cite that as a reason.

 

"Well, you offered to pay your share on the first date. In fact you insisted!" and have taken that as a sign to NOT ask for date #2. Probably not an issue with the younger set I would imagine but it's probably a lot to do with upbringing and culture as well as era.

 

Agreed about the culture. At 28, this is less of a problem and I split more dates when I was dating. However, if you read the paying for dates thread, you will see many women state there that they prefer men to pay. There are certainly those who do not mind paying, but I am not speaking to them. I'm speaking to the opinion of the piece and those women that want careers and success while still being paid for and dating only men that make about as much or more than they do. It seems to be a fairly popular attitude today.

[Els]

 

I am not saying that people should not be given a chance to succeed. However, once you make to the top if the mountain, you cannot cry that you can't find a life partner that did not also make it to the top. One person's gain is almost always another person's loss. Should that loss come with thousands of dollars of debt and years of lost life or is it more humane to tell a person they cannot get that education or opportunity and allow them time to create another plan?

 

This is changing as job opportunities are changing, IMO. It is far more common now to find women earning more than their husbands and even supporting SAHDs, than it was in the past. It isn't completely equal, of course, but then again, neither is job equality, and any woman who has ever set foot in a position of authority and/or traditional male dominated roles knows that. One change leads to another, though, and I think with time and continued professional success for women, this too will even out.

 

FWIW, I think there are as many men who don't want a woman earning more than them/working longer hours than them, as there are women who don't want the converse. This persistence in 'women mating with career equals' is caused by both sides, really. Donald Trump or Hugh Hefner will have plenty of young women going after them, but the same cannot be said for female CEOs like them.

[AD1980]

... I ask them out.

 

So what then?

 

and pay? well know you know exactly what Men go through in the early stages of the courting proces then;) and how hard it is feeling like your trying to prove yourself to someone while they sit back and judge if your worthy or might be using you

[zengirl]

I am actually planning to move farther south after I finish up my fellowship for just those reasons. I have lived in the southeast before as well though and it is not always the most welcoming to minorities.

 

I put teaching and academia together because many of those that struggle in academia end up teaching in secondary schools. Academia was not such an uncertain path before the 1970s. The majority of PhD positions were fully funded, schools limited positions, and the majority of academics got jobs. Today, there is less funding, more positions, and less than 10% of graduates get tenure track jobs in some fields.

 

While it can run the gamut, the article was talking about successful men settling down more easily with women. While men run the gamut, the more available men with good jobs, the fewer choices you have and the more likely you are to settle. Limit the number of men with good jobs and those men will take advantage of the many women interested in them.

 

It seemed to me that the article was not talking about particularly rich or successful men or singling them out, though it did suggest that men may seek success and self esteem through attracting many women, rather than as a head of household. I didn't think it suggested there was any difference between rich, poor, or middle class men or examined class structure much at all, really.

 

I think most who wash out of academia struggle in secondary school teaching, if they do break into it. They don't last long in many cases. I don't know, Sanman, from what I can see (and I have a mostly-funded PhD that my workplace supplements -- I don't pay a dime for it), there are a lot of lazy-asses who attempt to go into academia. I'm not saying everyone who fails is. Some are simply not good at publishing (academia isn't about teaching or learning, really) and all that entails.

 

Many PhDs are still fully funded today. I'd agree that if someone can't find funding, perhaps they should take it as a sign that it may not work out (my suggestion would be to buff up their credentials prior with appropriate work, study, and publication and apply again).

[verhrzn]

and pay? well know you know exactly what Men go through in the early stages of the courting proces then;) and how hard it is feeling like your trying to prove yourself to someone while they sit back and judge if your worthy or might be using you

 

.... Except in the cases of women, women are only judging/using them sometimes. Most women I know don't go on dates, even for a free meal, with a guy they have zero interest in.

 

In my case, the guys knew before we even got to the date that they weren't interested, but went anyway... because guys just aren't that picky about time wasting.

 

So, uh, no, I don't know what it feels like for a guy, since I never even stood a chance.